<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for BuryCoal.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://burycoal.com/blog/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://burycoal.com/blog</link>
	<description>Keep coal underground, along with unconventional oil and gas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:30:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Keystone XL rejected by .</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2012/01/18/keystone-xl-rejected/#comment-38036</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=548#comment-38036</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/05/27/130527taco_talk_kolbert?mbid=social_mobile_tweet&amp;mobify=0&quot; title=&quot;Elizabeth Kolbert: Obama&#8217;s Keystone Decision : The New Yorker&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lines in the Sand&lt;/a&gt;
by Elizabeth Kolbert

...

If the arguments in favor of Keystone are persuasive, those against it are even stronger. Tar-sands oil is not really oil, at least not in the conventional sense of the word. It starts out as semi-solid and has to be either mined or literally melted out of the ground. In either case, the process requires energy, which is provided by burning fossil fuels. The result is that, for every barrel of tar-sands oil that’s extracted, significantly more carbon dioxide enters the air than for every barrel of ordinary crude—between twelve and twenty-three per cent more.

Alberta’s tar sands contain an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of oil. Assuming that only a tenth of that is recoverable, it’s still enough to generate something like twenty-two billion metric tons of carbon. There are, it should be noted, plenty of other ways to produce twenty-two billion metric tons of carbon. Consuming about a seventh of the world’s remaining accessible reserves of conventional oil would do it, as would combusting even a small fraction of the world’s remaining coal deposits. Which is just the point.

Were we to burn through all known fossil-fuel reserves, the results would be unimaginably bleak: major cities would be flooded out, a large portion of the world’s arable land would be transformed into deserts, and the oceans would be turned into liquid dead zones. If we take the future at all seriously, which is to say as a time period that someone is going to have to live in, then we need to leave a big percentage of the planet’s coal and oil and natural gas in the ground. These basic facts have been established for decades, and every President since George Bush senior has vowed to do something to avert catastrophe. The numbers from Mauna Loa show that they have failed.

In rejecting Keystone, President Obama would not solve the underlying problem, which, as pipeline proponents correctly point out, is consumption. Nor would he halt exploitation of the tar sands. But he would put a brake on the process. After all, if getting tar-sands oil to China were easy, the Canadians wouldn’t be applying so much pressure on the White House. Once Keystone is built, there will be no putting the tar back in the sands. The pipeline isn’t inevitable, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s just another step on the march to disaster.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/05/27/130527taco_talk_kolbert?mbid=social_mobile_tweet&amp;mobify=0" title="Elizabeth Kolbert: Obama&#8217;s Keystone Decision : The New Yorker" rel="nofollow">Lines in the Sand</a><br />
by Elizabeth Kolbert</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>If the arguments in favor of Keystone are persuasive, those against it are even stronger. Tar-sands oil is not really oil, at least not in the conventional sense of the word. It starts out as semi-solid and has to be either mined or literally melted out of the ground. In either case, the process requires energy, which is provided by burning fossil fuels. The result is that, for every barrel of tar-sands oil that’s extracted, significantly more carbon dioxide enters the air than for every barrel of ordinary crude—between twelve and twenty-three per cent more.</p>
<p>Alberta’s tar sands contain an estimated 1.7 trillion barrels of oil. Assuming that only a tenth of that is recoverable, it’s still enough to generate something like twenty-two billion metric tons of carbon. There are, it should be noted, plenty of other ways to produce twenty-two billion metric tons of carbon. Consuming about a seventh of the world’s remaining accessible reserves of conventional oil would do it, as would combusting even a small fraction of the world’s remaining coal deposits. Which is just the point.</p>
<p>Were we to burn through all known fossil-fuel reserves, the results would be unimaginably bleak: major cities would be flooded out, a large portion of the world’s arable land would be transformed into deserts, and the oceans would be turned into liquid dead zones. If we take the future at all seriously, which is to say as a time period that someone is going to have to live in, then we need to leave a big percentage of the planet’s coal and oil and natural gas in the ground. These basic facts have been established for decades, and every President since George Bush senior has vowed to do something to avert catastrophe. The numbers from Mauna Loa show that they have failed.</p>
<p>In rejecting Keystone, President Obama would not solve the underlying problem, which, as pipeline proponents correctly point out, is consumption. Nor would he halt exploitation of the tar sands. But he would put a brake on the process. After all, if getting tar-sands oil to China were easy, the Canadians wouldn’t be applying so much pressure on the White House. Once Keystone is built, there will be no putting the tar back in the sands. The pipeline isn’t inevitable, and it shouldn’t be treated as such. It’s just another step on the march to disaster.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Keystone XL rejected by .</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2012/01/18/keystone-xl-rejected/#comment-38034</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=548#comment-38034</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;President Obama is a master of symbolism and is certainly highly attuned to the growing meaning behind the Keystone XL battle. With this pipeline, he faces a decision about the economic future of America with outsized symbolic significance: will we go further down the old road of the oil economy -- no matter how dirty, dangerous or destructive -- or will we take a bold turn toward building a new economy based on low-impact, renewable, domestic energy? The president does not want to make this choice, even symbolically. He knows that approving the pipeline would be wrong for the country and for the planet. But doing the right thing would alienate the most powerful industry in the world and disrupt the very fabric of our oil-based economy. So he drags his feet.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;President Obama is a master of symbolism and is certainly highly attuned to the growing meaning behind the Keystone XL battle. With this pipeline, he faces a decision about the economic future of America with outsized symbolic significance: will we go further down the old road of the oil economy &#8212; no matter how dirty, dangerous or destructive &#8212; or will we take a bold turn toward building a new economy based on low-impact, renewable, domestic energy? The president does not want to make this choice, even symbolically. He knows that approving the pipeline would be wrong for the country and for the planet. But doing the right thing would alienate the most powerful industry in the world and disrupt the very fabric of our oil-based economy. So he drags his feet.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Keystone XL rejected by .</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2012/01/18/keystone-xl-rejected/#comment-38033</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=548#comment-38033</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fiege/how-the-keystone-xl-pipel_b_3294748.html&quot; title=&quot;John Fiege: How the Keystone XL Pipeline Has Become Too Big to Approve&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;How the Keystone XL Pipeline Has Become Too Big to Approve&lt;/a&gt;

The past few weeks have brought some surprising developments and contradictions in the Keystone XL pipeline saga. Former Vice-President Al Gore told Canada&#039;s The Globe and Mail that he wished President Obama would cancel the pipeline project. Current Vice-President Joe Biden casually told an activist that he opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, although he&#039;s &quot;in the minority&quot; (echoing his recent gay marriage support ahead of the official change of position by the White House). On Earth Day, Obama&#039;s Environmental Protection Agency criticized Obama&#039;s State Department over the environmental impact review of the Keystone XL pipeline, citing &quot;environmental objections.&quot; And finally, an unnamed U.S. official told Reuters that the president now plans to delay his decision on the pipeline even longer -- possibly until 2014. What is going on here? How did a pipeline that was supposed to win approval two years ago become such a contested topic among close allies?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fiege/how-the-keystone-xl-pipel_b_3294748.html" title="John Fiege: How the Keystone XL Pipeline Has Become Too Big to Approve" rel="nofollow">How the Keystone XL Pipeline Has Become Too Big to Approve</a></p>
<p>The past few weeks have brought some surprising developments and contradictions in the Keystone XL pipeline saga. Former Vice-President Al Gore told Canada&#8217;s The Globe and Mail that he wished President Obama would cancel the pipeline project. Current Vice-President Joe Biden casually told an activist that he opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, although he&#8217;s &#8220;in the minority&#8221; (echoing his recent gay marriage support ahead of the official change of position by the White House). On Earth Day, Obama&#8217;s Environmental Protection Agency criticized Obama&#8217;s State Department over the environmental impact review of the Keystone XL pipeline, citing &#8220;environmental objections.&#8221; And finally, an unnamed U.S. official told Reuters that the president now plans to delay his decision on the pipeline even longer &#8212; possibly until 2014. What is going on here? How did a pipeline that was supposed to win approval two years ago become such a contested topic among close allies?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Another way to get the oil out &#8211; trains by .</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2011/02/09/another-way-to-get-the-oil-out-trains/#comment-38030</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 14:38:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=295#comment-38030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/story/2013/05/21/saskatoon-train-derail-oil-jansen.html&quot; title=&quot;Train carrying crude oil derails east of Saskatoon - Saskatoon - CBC News&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Train carrying crude oil derails east of Saskatoon&lt;/a&gt;

Workers digging berm to contain oil]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/story/2013/05/21/saskatoon-train-derail-oil-jansen.html" title="Train carrying crude oil derails east of Saskatoon - Saskatoon - CBC News" rel="nofollow">Train carrying crude oil derails east of Saskatoon</a></p>
<p>Workers digging berm to contain oil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why bury coal? by .</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/why-bury-coal/#comment-37652</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 10:48:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?page_id=25#comment-37652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[350 is a popular number among people concerned about climate change. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/climate-change-activism&quot; title=&quot;Climate-change activism: The number of the miffed &#124; The Economist&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;That is because 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere is the level that, in the words of James Hansen, a prominent climate scientist, is needed “to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted”.&lt;/a&gt; Today the ratio is nudging 400ppm, the highest since the Pliocene, 4m years ago, when Canada was a tropical jungle. This prompted some, including the UN, to suggest 450ppm, which should limit warming to 2ºC, as a more realistic goal. 

All the same, 350 has become a rallying cry, especially for the younger generation which will bear the brunt of global warming but as yet lacks the political clout to do much about it. It is also the name of a network launched in 2008 by Bill McKibben, the aim of which is to shift the fight against climate change out of high politics and onto the streets—or at least to places where youngsters hang out.

Rather than lobby for change in dysfunctional, and old, Washington, DC, 350 has spent the past five years spreading the word around college campuses, religious organisations and municipal authorities, for instance pressing them to shed stakes in fossil-fuel firms. The outfit does not just argue that such investments are immoral, but also that they are risky (as we wrote last week, if governments were determined to implement their climate policies, a lot of energy firms fossil-fuel reserves, on which their stock valuations hinge, would have to be left in the ground).

Such arguments have so far convinced four American colleges and a big church in Australia to dump shares in fossil-fuel-related businesses and to invest in renewable energy instead. At the local-government level, ten American cities, including Seattle, San Francisco and Madison, have committed to similar divestments, persuaded, among other things, by 350’s lobbying.

Mr McKibben, a former journalist for the New Yorker and author of “The End of Nature”, published in 1989 and widely regarded as the first book on climate change for a general audience, co-founded the network with seven undergraduate college students. It now counts thousands of volunteer organisers in 188 countries.

Perhaps 350’s most famous day of action was October 24th 2009, when it co-ordinated 5,200 separate demonstrations in 181 countries. This was made possible in part thanks to 350&#039;s 132 chapters in 57 countries and helped by its large social-media following: with 138,000 Twitter. In fact, Mr McKibben claims that 350 has now managed to hold rallies in every country on Earth bar North Korea.

In June 350 will host 500 young grassroots activists and climate-conscious political leaders at the Global Power Switch conference in Istanbul, to be followed by a slew of smaller, regional summits. The shindig was ten-times oversubscibed, says Mr McKibben.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>350 is a popular number among people concerned about climate change. <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/climate-change-activism" title="Climate-change activism: The number of the miffed | The Economist" rel="nofollow">That is because 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere is the level that, in the words of James Hansen, a prominent climate scientist, is needed “to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted”.</a> Today the ratio is nudging 400ppm, the highest since the Pliocene, 4m years ago, when Canada was a tropical jungle. This prompted some, including the UN, to suggest 450ppm, which should limit warming to 2ºC, as a more realistic goal. </p>
<p>All the same, 350 has become a rallying cry, especially for the younger generation which will bear the brunt of global warming but as yet lacks the political clout to do much about it. It is also the name of a network launched in 2008 by Bill McKibben, the aim of which is to shift the fight against climate change out of high politics and onto the streets—or at least to places where youngsters hang out.</p>
<p>Rather than lobby for change in dysfunctional, and old, Washington, DC, 350 has spent the past five years spreading the word around college campuses, religious organisations and municipal authorities, for instance pressing them to shed stakes in fossil-fuel firms. The outfit does not just argue that such investments are immoral, but also that they are risky (as we wrote last week, if governments were determined to implement their climate policies, a lot of energy firms fossil-fuel reserves, on which their stock valuations hinge, would have to be left in the ground).</p>
<p>Such arguments have so far convinced four American colleges and a big church in Australia to dump shares in fossil-fuel-related businesses and to invest in renewable energy instead. At the local-government level, ten American cities, including Seattle, San Francisco and Madison, have committed to similar divestments, persuaded, among other things, by 350’s lobbying.</p>
<p>Mr McKibben, a former journalist for the New Yorker and author of “The End of Nature”, published in 1989 and widely regarded as the first book on climate change for a general audience, co-founded the network with seven undergraduate college students. It now counts thousands of volunteer organisers in 188 countries.</p>
<p>Perhaps 350’s most famous day of action was October 24th 2009, when it co-ordinated 5,200 separate demonstrations in 181 countries. This was made possible in part thanks to 350&#8242;s 132 chapters in 57 countries and helped by its large social-media following: with 138,000 Twitter. In fact, Mr McKibben claims that 350 has now managed to hold rallies in every country on Earth bar North Korea.</p>
<p>In June 350 will host 500 young grassroots activists and climate-conscious political leaders at the Global Power Switch conference in Istanbul, to be followed by a slew of smaller, regional summits. The shindig was ten-times oversubscibed, says Mr McKibben.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why the oil sands are unethical by .</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2011/03/07/why-the-oil-sands-are-unethical/#comment-37586</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 15:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=315#comment-37586</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;‘No such thing as ethical oil,’ Al Gore tells Toronto audience&quot; http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/no-such-thing-as-ethical-oil-al-gore-tells-toronto-audience/article11777256/?service=mobile]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;‘No such thing as ethical oil,’ Al Gore tells Toronto audience&#8221; <a href="http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/no-such-thing-as-ethical-oil-al-gore-tells-toronto-audience/article11777256/?service=mobile" rel="nofollow">http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/no-such-thing-as-ethical-oil-al-gore-tells-toronto-audience/article11777256/?service=mobile</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Northern Gateway pipeline by .</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/resources/northern-gateway-pipeline/#comment-36998</link>
		<dc:creator>.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?page_id=559#comment-36998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gateway can’t go ahead without full safety plan, Enbridge told

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/gateway-cant-go-ahead-without-full-safety-plan-enbridge-told/article11143741/

Enbridge Inc. must put in place all of its of voluntary spill and tanker safety plan, fund heavy oil spill research and hold nearly $1-billion in liability coverage if it builds its controversial Northern Gateway project, a federal panel has determined.

On Friday morning, the National Energy Board released a lengthy list of potential conditions for Gateway. The list does not constitute approval of the project – that decision is not expected until later this year. But the board said Friday “the publication of potential conditions is a standard step in the hearing process that is mandated by the courts.”]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gateway can’t go ahead without full safety plan, Enbridge told</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/gateway-cant-go-ahead-without-full-safety-plan-enbridge-told/article11143741/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/gateway-cant-go-ahead-without-full-safety-plan-enbridge-told/article11143741/</a></p>
<p>Enbridge Inc. must put in place all of its of voluntary spill and tanker safety plan, fund heavy oil spill research and hold nearly $1-billion in liability coverage if it builds its controversial Northern Gateway project, a federal panel has determined.</p>
<p>On Friday morning, the National Energy Board released a lengthy list of potential conditions for Gateway. The list does not constitute approval of the project – that decision is not expected until later this year. But the board said Friday “the publication of potential conditions is a standard step in the hearing process that is mandated by the courts.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blocking the Northern Gateway pipeline by Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”? &#124; Critical Angle</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2011/12/04/blocking-the-northern-gateway-pipeline/#comment-36937</link>
		<dc:creator>Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”? &#124; Critical Angle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=528#comment-36937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] of tanker accidents in the narrow fjords of BC’s pristine northern coast and the turbulent Hecate Strait. Recent publications have also drawn attention to the massive damage to peatlands caused by [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of tanker accidents in the narrow fjords of BC’s pristine northern coast and the turbulent Hecate Strait. Recent publications have also drawn attention to the massive damage to peatlands caused by [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on RealClimate on the Keystone XL &#8216;carbon bomb&#8217; by Two James Hansen updates</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2011/11/07/realclimate-on-the-keystone-xl-carbon-bomb/#comment-36862</link>
		<dc:creator>Two James Hansen updates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=515#comment-36862</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] RealClimate on the Keystone XL &#8216;carbon bomb&#8217; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] RealClimate on the Keystone XL &#8216;carbon bomb&#8217; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on James Hansen&#8217;s climate change TED talk by Two James Hansen updates</title>
		<link>http://burycoal.com/blog/2012/03/12/james-hansens-climate-change-ted-talk/#comment-36861</link>
		<dc:creator>Two James Hansen updates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 15:10:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://burycoal.com/blog/?p=578#comment-36861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] James Hansen’s climate change TED talk [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] James Hansen’s climate change TED talk [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 1.296 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-05-21 14:57:52 -->
